Appeal 3368941

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and locality.

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached, Victorian dwelling with a low front wall and modest front garden and driveway area. It is red brick and tiles with a projecting double height front gable and bay windows. The dwelling has single glazed timber ornate windows, sliding sash and flush casement, and a timber front door. Apart from some gable details the property is effectively symmetrical in form and detail to the paired attached dwelling. The character of the area is residential in nature with generally villa style homes in the local environs. The appearance of the locality is extremely pleasing with principal architectural features, fine detailing and gardens all coming together to create an environment of high visual quality and a firm sense of place and period.

The proposal is as described above; the Appellant underlines that the material would be of semi-matt woodgrain appearance and with replication in form, design and dimensions. The air gap would be 10mm.

The property lies within the [address] Conservation Area and is, understandably, annotated within this as a Notable Building. There is a duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. This is reflected within Policy EM11 of the Basingstoke & Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (LP) which takes the same approach and includes a range of elaborating criteria.

The Council, through policy protection and practice in development control, seeks to secure that replacement windows in Conservation Areas will be constructed in traditional materials. As a rule, my stance is similar.

Looking at this specific case, I do accept that the windows are in poor condition and a combination of repair and replacement would be an expensive task. However, regrettably, replacement with a white woodgrain uPVC will never entirely reproduce what is in situ and this is an instance where I believe every effort should be made to do just that. This is a semi-detached home in a run of impressive properties in an avenue of dwellings which almost all contribute to the street scene by, amongst other things, their, generally, original window forms and materials.

It seems to me that a relatively prominent and principal property within a Conservation Area must be a building and a locality where one should take utmost care and seek to encourage sensitive restoration and prevent inappropriate change. The proposed replacements may well be of good quality but in my opinion their use here would be noticeable and would be a retrograde step and dilute local heritage attributes.

I should add that I am not persuaded by the energy reduction argument as presently put by the Appellant. This neither fully explores in detail the effectiveness of using timber nor appears to acknowledge that uPVC is not in itself a low energy source. 10.Given all these circumstances and the nature of the scheme I conclude that the proposal would run contrary to the aims of S72(1) of the Act and conflict with LP Policy EM11. I also conclude that the scheme would run contrary to LP Policy EM10 which seeks high quality development with appropriate aesthetic attributes. Furthermore, I would deem there to be breaches of the over-arching objectives of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018), the Heritage Supplementary Planning Document (2019) and the [address] Conservation Area Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document (2006); albeit I recognise that this guidance cannot be expected to cover every detailed eventuality.